Hi Stephen, Supose you have STM4 links, ok? And you have 2G of trafic from your 100000 ADSL customers, ok? And those STM4 go to 3 dif carriers in USA. Then, how you advertise only one IPv6 prefix to all and make the 2G go trough one STM4 ? On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote: steve. > steve. >Hi Christian, steve. > I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction ov DFZ are correlated. steve. > steve. >If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and anticipated growth). So we'll see 220000 routes reduce to 25000. steve. > steve. >The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a factor there. steve. > steve. >So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ? steve. > steve. >Steve steve. > steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: steve. >> steve. >> Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be. steve. >> steve. >> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you should go ahead and plan that migration. steve. >> steve. >> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay intact, ostensibly to solve a very specific scaling problem. steve. >> steve. >> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting. steve. >> steve. >> Best Regards, steve. >> Christian steve. >> steve. >> -- steve. >> Sent from my BlackBerry. steve. >> steve. >> -----Original Message----- steve. >> From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com> steve. >> steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 steve. >> To:Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net> steve. >> Cc:Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>, owner-nanog@merit.edu, Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>, nanog@nanog.org steve. >> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 steve. >> steve. >> steve. >> multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams. steve. >> steve. >> the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group steve. >> steve. >> this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level steve. >> steve. >> Steve steve. >> steve. >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: steve. >> > Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless. steve. >> > steve. >> > -- steve. >> > Sent from my BlackBerry. steve. >> > steve. >> > -----Original Message----- steve. >> > From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> steve. >> > steve. >> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 steve. >> > To:Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org> steve. >> > Cc:nanog@nanog.org steve. >> > Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 steve. >> > steve. >> > steve. >> > steve. >> > steve. >> > On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote: steve. >> > steve. >> > >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer steve. >> > >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the steve. >> > >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to steve. >> > >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted steve. >> > >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both. steve. >> > > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to steve. >> > > crawl those v6 sites? steve. >> > steve. >> > I think we're debating from very similar positions... steve. >> > steve. >> > v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if steve. >> > life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question. steve. >> > steve. >> > Andy steve. >> > steve. >